Jo22 wrote on 2023-02-13, 14:02:

My condolences. 😔 It seems to have had a "Vista Basic" sticker, too. Which translated to "Vista makes it to the desktop; PC can […]
Show full quote

Vic Zarratt wrote on 2023-02-13, 12:16:

Had an acer SA90 in early 2008, as a representative of my first time vista experience = awful hardware.

My condolences. 😔 It seems to have had a "Vista Basic" sticker, too.
Which translated to "Vista makes it to the desktop; PC can barely run XP, either."

The success of Windows 7 was largely based on Vista's hardware requirements.
The Windows 98 era PCs, which were slightly upgraded to run Windows XP over the years, were finally deprecated/retired.

This also helped XP to run better, since 512MB RAM were a minimum requirement to run Vista.

So penny wise users were finally forced to upgrade RAM.. I loved Vista for this circumstance. 🥳

Edit: Just noticed, I'm a bit too chatty again. My bad. 😅

The nuker that i had was vista home premium, not basic. Things might of been more understandable it that been the case.
the specs were: 1gb ram, sata 250gb hdd, Ati radeon hd2400 pro lo-profile, E2160 pentium dual-core, ide dvd-rw, internal card reader
and the worst motherboard i ever touched. (yes, worse than the pcchips m512 because at least that didn't keep shutting down)

I was wondering Is it a good idea to install something like GeForce 4Ti 4200 on a thin client computer for 95-2001 games? Some of them have upgrade slots, right?

ultra wrote on 2023-02-15, 08:37:

I was wondering Is it a good idea to install something like GeForce 4Ti 4200 on a thin client computer for 95-2001 games, some of them have upgrade slots, right? Is it even possible?

Thin client usually only have a single PCI slot if any and some have issues running sound or graphics cards in them. There are more versatile options for small PCs, both barebone or custom built.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-02-15, 08:48:

ultra wrote on 2023-02-15, 08:37:

I was wondering Is it a good idea to install something like GeForce 4Ti 4200 on a thin client computer for 95-2001 games, some of them have upgrade slots, right? Is it even possible?

Thin client usually only have a single PCI slot if any and some have issues running sound or graphics cards in them. There are more versatile options for small PCs, both barebone or custom built.

What kind of custom builds? You can buy it somewhere? P.S Another question about compatibility. GeForce 7 is more compatible for DirectX 9 games, but what are the typical compatibility problems that I can get with GeForce 8, 9 or even newer cards as they have DX10? Edit: compatibility with Windows XP DX9 games.

Hi as said before late 90s games may be incompatible not only with your hardware but with XP at all.
f you absolutely have to play everything from 1998 to 2010 in XP on a single computer I propose you this build:
AM2+ system with 2-3GB DDR2 or DDR3.
Relatively fast single-core CPU such as Sempron Sargas.
A modern graphic card with XP drivers that you can afford.
A voodoo2 for old games that won't work on a main card.

Bruno128 wrote on 2023-02-15, 16:27:

Hi as said before late 90s games may be incompatible not only with your hardware but with XP at all. f you absolutely have to p […]
Show full quote

Hi as said before late 90s games may be incompatible not only with your hardware but with XP at all.
f you absolutely have to play everything from 1998 to 2010 in XP on a single computer I propose you this build:
AM2+ system with 2-3GB DDR2 or DDR3.
Relatively fast single-core CPU such as Sempron Sargas.
A modern graphic card with XP drivers that you can afford.
A voodoo2 for old games that won't work on a main card.

Sorry, I forgot to say that my question about GF 7 was about Windows XP and games from 2001 to 2006.

ultra wrote on 2023-02-15, 18:36:

Sorry, I forgot to say that my question about GF 7 was about Windows XP and games from 2001 to 2006.

While it will likely work in most cases, for 2005-2006 you may need to tune settings down a bit. For example, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic (2006) is a pretty demanding game for 7900GTX let alone anything slower so it may run not smooth on highest settings. I suggest you make a roster list of to-play games and do your research on system requirements etc. There is no single perfect build.

ultra wrote on 2023-02-15, 16:13:

What kind of custom builds? You can buy it somewhere?

I meant you custo build it yourself. There are very small cases, like the In Win BL series, which are small form factor cases allowing you to use standard uATX motherboards and TFX power supplies, have room 2×3.5" and 1×5.25" drives. You can get something like a Chaintech 6LTM2, a Celeron-A 333, a Geforce MX400, the low profile variant of the ESS AudioDrive ES1869FC and 128MB RAM and you have a fine and small Windows 98 PC for very cheap and just fast enough to cover the period most troublesome for modern PCs.

Also you can use any other more modern uATX Socket 370 or Socket A board for more CPU power, as long as you don't overload the 5V rail of your PSU. I don't think you can go much smaller while maintaining gaming performance and compatibility.

ultra wrote on 2023-02-15, 16:13:

P.S Another question about compatibility. GeForce 7 is more compatible for DirectX 9 games, but what are the typical compatibility problems that I can get with GeForce 8, 9 or even newer cards?

For the XP era, there aren't much in terms of incompatibility when it comes to graphics cards. The one that comes to my mind is the one I mentioned already, the early nvidia game works bumpmapping causes the game to crash, but a community fix exists for that, this affects all cards past GF7. Right off the top of my head that's the only one that comes to my mind, if you strictly ask GF7 vs GF8+. If you go back further, there are a bunch of legacy features lost after Geforce FX, some are blown out of proportion because they only affect a handful of games (8bit paletted textures, table fog) and may not even cause the game to not work, only to not be displayed correctly, others, like the lack 16bit dithering causes color banding, so also a feature which causes the game to not display correctly. There are also driver sensitive games which affects XP a lot less than Windows 98, but still present. The problems however can be OS level incompatibility as Bruno128 said. As I mentioned, I had problems running Soldier of Fortune vanilla and needed a community fix for XP, but I didn't investigate the cause. I think there is a list of games somewhere on Vogons about problematic games.

8800GT sounds like it would be nice card for a XP era gaming rig, it's way faster than a 7900,
it's not super rare or crazy on power, also it's just a more efficient evolution of the 8800GTX from late 2006.

but, keep in mind, some games really push hardware on higher settings, with a HD 5850 I still had issues "maxing out" Dirt 1 (2007), mostly with MSAA4x I think (at 1280x1024)

For XP, the fastest video cards are:
Nvidia: GTX980Ti and Titan X (not XP)
AMD/ATI: HD7970 and 7990.

The Nvidia 780Ti is supposed to be more compatible with some games.

You could always runan ATI/AMD card and an Nvidia card in the same system. One for older games and one for newer games so you get the best support for older games and the best speed for newer games.

Crysis on a C2D... Hahahahahaha. The recommended specs for that game were a joke.

SPBHM wrote on 2023-02-15, 20:16:

8800GT sounds like it would be nice card for a XP era gaming rig, it's way faster than a 7900,

I advise against going near 8800 unless you are buying from a tested seller, those furnaces were subject to overclocking back in the day and some are actually cooked.
Besides, you gain zero compatibility benefit in comparison to newer stuff like GTX 5xx or whatever

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-02-15, 21:22:

AMD card and an Nvidia card in the same system

mixed-gpu configuration won't work with some motherboards, may confuse some older games, and then there is PCIe bus bandwidth limitation for the second slot

Then better to stick with the GTX 960/950, as I wanted initially, since they have higher performance and power efficiency for my needs. But the aesthetics of those mid-late 2000 graphics cards with the sticker on their coolers are blowing my mind, so I will probably grab some. Thank you to everyone on this thread, I know a lot more about retro because of you. <3

Bruno128 wrote on 2023-02-15, 22:09:

SPBHM wrote on 2023-02-15, 20:16:

8800GT sounds like it would be nice card for a XP era gaming rig, it's way faster than a 7900,

I advise against going near 8800 unless you are buying from a tested seller, those furnaces were subject to overclocking back in the day and some are actually cooked.
Besides, you gain zero compatibility benefit in comparison to newer stuff like GTX 5xx or whatever

The GT200 is even worse in that regard. Problem is the power creep. If you aren't much into period correctness, once you go for a G80/92 GPU you'll realize it's still to slow for certain games even in 1280×1024 and you'll start looking for a faster one.

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-02-15, 21:22:

Crysis on a C2D... Hahahahahaha. The recommended specs for that game were a joke.

A fast C2D for Crysis should be perfectly fine. As far as I'm aware, the game don't scale well above 2 cores and the bottleneck with that game was always the GPU. No single GPU could run that game maxed out at 1080p@30 until the HD5800 and GTX480/70 series released.

ultra wrote on 2023-02-13, 07:49:

Vic Zarratt wrote on 2023-02-13, 07:35:

I don't have crysis to confirm actual functioning, but an asrock g31 mainboard coupled with an nVidia GT9600 and a core2duo E86oo + 2gb ram makes for a nice year 2009 machine.
EDIT: it may be noted that winXP wasn't actually discontinued until 2014 and i can confirm that sandybridge drivers exist for XP, they'll work on Packard bell easynote TS laptops, which were made around June 2012.

Interesting. Were there any problems with the games of the early 2000s?

I remember playing Virtual Pool 3:JL a on XP on an old geforce mx card without issues.
Yet when I tried same game on W7 with gtx660, there where issues with D3D picture quality and I had to use software renderer.
Game refuses to run on W10 without DLL wrappers

It seems older cards are much more compatible with old games, just like during DOS era

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-02-16, 05:17:

A fast C2D for Crysis should be perfectly fine. As far as I'm aware, the game don't scale well above 2 cores and the bottleneck with that game was always the GPU. No single GPU could run that game maxed out at 1080p@30 until the HD5800 and GTX480/70 series released.

GTX 480 is good pairing for fast C2D or 1st gen i7 in DX9 mode. With HD7970 there will be noticeable difference with faster cpu when benchmarking Assault_Harbor.

1080p Very high DX10 64bit settings with HD7970@1100/1600mhz:
2500k 4.5ghz 68fps
2500k 3.7ghz stock 57fps
i7 920 4ghz 58fps
i7 920 stock 48fps

timsdf wrote on 2023-02-16, 11:44:

GTX 480 is good pairing for fast C2D or 1st gen i7 in DX9 mode. With HD7970 there will be noticeable difference with faster cpu […]
Show full quote

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-02-16, 05:17:

A fast C2D for Crysis should be perfectly fine. As far as I'm aware, the game don't scale well above 2 cores and the bottleneck with that game was always the GPU. No single GPU could run that game maxed out at 1080p@30 until the HD5800 and GTX480/70 series released.

GTX 480 is good pairing for fast C2D or 1st gen i7 in DX9 mode. With HD7970 there will be noticeable difference with faster cpu when benchmarking Assault_Harbor.

1080p Very high DX10 64bit settings with HD7970@1100/1600mhz:
2500k 4.5ghz 68fps
2500k 3.7ghz stock 57fps
i7 920 4ghz 58fps
i7 920 stock 48fps

This makes me curious how Sandy Bridge i3s and Pentiums perform against the 2500k.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-02-16, 15:02:

This makes me curious how Sandy Bridge i3s and Pentiums perform against the 2500k.

probably quite well with 1:1 ghz speed. i3s are just limited to 3.3ghz while 2500k does up to 5.0 😁

So the GeForce 7 has better compatibility with XP era games? What features don't work on newer cards? Shader models 3.0 were mentioned, they will not work on a card with unified shaders?

SPBHM wrote on 2023-02-15, 20:16:

8800GT sounds like it would be nice card for a XP era gaming rig, it's way faster than a 7900,
it's not super rare or crazy on power, also it's just a more efficient evolution of the 8800GTX from late 2006.

but, keep in mind, some games really push hardware on higher settings, with a HD 5850 I still had issues "maxing out" Dirt 1 (2007), mostly with MSAA4x I think (at 1280x1024)

Avoid the single slot 8800GT. If you get one that still works. . .it won't after awhile.